"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and
permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion between the
conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is
dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.


And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.


How much are
the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the separation
of the lines to get the field strength in volts per meter. If you know the
location of the ground below them (as in electrical ground) you can create
the image circuit (using the method of images) and calculate the field
strength also at the ground level.


And why
do you worry about those high voltage wires when your own
citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires inside the
building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling noise? What
is the voltage induced in a moving object under a power line? Any idea?
Indoor wiring = very bad!


It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?



Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing human. 80 mV
is all it takes.




In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!



Molecular resonance. Fine. Why is it so dangerous? You
forgot to mention field size - provide numbers - that make
molecular resonance significant. It was not an accidental
omission.


In large molecules, such as DNA, resonance can be used to alter the
molecule. The field strength or magnetic moment would have to exceed the
bond energy of the particular molecular link.



Don't take an MRI. Those fields are so much stronger as to
kill everyone who gets an MRI?

Don't get X-Rays. Those are so much stronger as to kill everyone who gets an
X-Ray?

(XRays are ioninzing radiation, much stronger, much more dangerous than the
27 MHz field of an NMR machine.)

Why do MRI machine operators work in a shielded area?

It's the cumulative dose that counts! You can get one big dose in a short
time or live under a powerline for decades.


Or maybe the hype should first
provide some numbers? According to what Bob Crantz has
posted, then clearly MRIs must kill some people. Why? Where
are his numbers to go along with all those dead brain cells?

It's the cumulative dose. MRI's have killed people.



Fortunately Scout will get a meter and learn the numbers.
Numbers are what the first posts in this thread should have
provided up front. Missing numbers are why so many can post
fear about electric transmission lines. No numbers is the
source of so much 'junk science' promoted fear.

Didn't check my references did you?



Bob Crantz wrote:
Where are you facts to support your assertions? You infer the
Leeper study and then don't mention it by name.

You completely fail to even consider molecular resonance.

You fail to consider aggregate resonance of the human body.

You cite the complexity of field conditions, which is true, but fail
to cite controlled laboratory experiments which can isolate cause
and effect and show the effects of electric and magnetic fields
on biological systems.
Here's just one example of magnetic fields used to control brain
chemistry:

http://nursing.vanderbilt.edu/pain/r.../pub-prot.html

Here's some Q&A:

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlin...r-FAQ/toc.html

Note the conclusions in the article say powerlines can't hurt you
as far as cancer and leukemia go.

Just for fun, take a light steel or copper cable/wire (uninsulated)
and use it as a jump rope with your bare, sweaty hands under a
power line. Try it at different distances and orientations from the
line.

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Many replies are so full of urban myth that I must restart.
Lets start with health effects rumored to be caused by
electricity (and ignore that original study was later
discovered with gross statistical errors). Many immediately
assume danger was in high tension wires. They first failed to
learn or demand the numbers. Those health effects, if exist,
were more likely from something that creates stronger fields -
such as wires underneath floor and inside walls, from circuit
breaker box to central air conditioner. Those who jump to
conclusions immediately assumed the study was about high
tension wires.

'Those' include many news anchors who refuse to first do what
all responsible anchormen are suppose to do - verify the story
- hold the reporter's feet to the fire - do as Walter Cronkite
did so routinely and so viciously. Immediately, the reply
from many posters is suspect - having confused health risk
warnings about something else - then assuming it must be high
tension wires. They assumed as many irresponsible news
anchors did on local news shows. Urban myth is now rampant
even in this thread.
...
Among the numbers not provided were line voltages. 128 kV?
230 kV? 765 kV? These also define other conditions such a
noise. What is on those electric distribution towers? Bottom
line. You need numbers before anyone can properly answer your
question. Lets not forget, the original Scandinavian study
that started all this hype was later discovered to have
manipulated the statistics. This was discovered by other
scientists who finally got access to the raw data. IOW hype
continued until numbers were revealed. Any yet the
speculation continues here - again without numbers.
...

But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high
voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry.
They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter
underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are
also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high
voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom
depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in
every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are
things found inside every house.

I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the
concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in
quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the
problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power
lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if
those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers
for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that
are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even
confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is
that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a
conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field
strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all
are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying
more often.

Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields.
Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house,
adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such
fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is
further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again,
the original post is about high voltage transmission lines.
The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from
elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage
power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor"
reasoning.

BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has
provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really
know what extremely long term health effects of these low
magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in
reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if
these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally
must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a
problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be
trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire.
Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it
just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But
we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do
know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are
not high voltage transmission lines as some totally
irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher
current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern
is justified. That is what too many if not most posters
failed to comprehend.

Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high
fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or
distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball
park measurements.

Bob Crantz wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion
between the conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.

And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.

How much are the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the
separation of the lines to get the field strength in volts per
meter. If you know the location of the ground below them (as in
electrical ground) you can create the image circuit (using the
method of images) and calculate the field strength also at the
ground level.

And why do you worry about those high voltage wires when
your own citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires
inside the building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling
noise? What is the voltage induced in a moving object under a
power line? Any idea? Indoor wiring = very bad!

It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?

Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing
human. 80 mV is all it takes.

In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!
...

My EMF-822A electromagnetic field radiation tester has just arrived.
I read in one of the reports, a maximum suggested exposure limit of 3
milligauss. I am getting a reading of 2 milligauss just sitting in front of
my CRT (there is also a 2 bulb flourescent light about 3 feet above my
head).
Moving the meter closer to the monitor gives readings up to 12 milligauss.
I'll play with this more in the days to come.
Scout

Excellent. Experience from that meter is what every poster
should have had before posting. Please report fields in many
locations including car - and that transmission line.

Warning: sometimes transmission lines are not carrying much
current. Therefore the readings may appear low. Take
readings at various time of day or year to better understand
the fields. And find other equivalent transmission lines to
verify readings at your transmission line are reasonable.

3 milligauss is one of the lower limits that many claim to
be 'maximum permissible'. Notice that what is and is not
healthy is a very wide region because - despite all the papers
such as those from Bob Crantz - we still don't known what is
dangerous; if anything. Bottom line. If HV transmission
lines don't exceed what is normally created in the house, then
transmission lines (currently) can be considered safe.

Also take electric field readings. E fields are measured in
volts per meter. Furthermore, notice what does and does not
eliminate or reduce both magnetic and electric fields.

I love it when people are more interested in the numbers
rather than just hyping what could be junk science. Its
called 'dirt under your fingernails'. Number are what junk
scientists fear to learn or post. Use numbers from research
papers by Bob Crantz to put your meter readings into
perspective. Appreciate why speculation on the dangers of
either magnetic or electric fields is so widely disputed.
Then appreciate why so many reiterate worries without the
'temper' of reality - the numbers.

Scout wrote:
My EMF-822A electromagnetic field radiation tester has just arrived.
I read in one of the reports, a maximum suggested exposure limit of 3
milligauss. I am getting a reading of 2 milligauss just sitting in
front of my CRT (there is also a 2 bulb flourescent light about 3
feet above my head).
Moving the meter closer to the monitor gives readings up to 12
milligauss. I'll play with this more in the days to come.
Scout

w_Tom,

You are correct about the fields in the house being of more concern than the
fields from a powerline. You are also correct about the studies from
powerlines. I was playing around with you and you stood your ground. For
that I have great respect.. Why didn't you catch the remark about the E
field increasing in a dielectric? It actually decreases, the Displacement
vector remains constant. My hat tips to you!

http://www.emfacts.com/papers/case-histories.html

Amen!

You won't burn in hell!

A powerline will get you instead!

Bob Crantz


"w_tom" wrote in message
...
But Bob Crantz gave no numbers for the fields around high
voltage power lines. Other fields should cause more worry.
They are the missing numbers. Is it 100 volts/meter
underneath the transmission line? But the those fields are
also found inside the house. Don't worry about those high
voltage transmission lines. Instead, move the bedroom
depending on how the house is constructed and wired ... in
every house. If fields are a problem, then the problem are
things found inside every house.

I am impressed that you do have fundamental knowledge of the
concepts - even though you confuse electron spin (a concept in
quantum physics) with electric current. But that is not the
problem. The problem is that fields from high voltage power
lines are not the source of potentially dangerous fields - if
those fields are even dangerous. You have provided numbers
for some observed scientific research - providing numbers that
are only speculative. But those fields are everywhere - even
confronting passengers in a car front seat. The problem is
that you don't provide any useful numbers for making a
conclusion - other than industry benchmark numbers. If field
strength numbers you have provided are accurate, then we all
are at high risk, constantly, in all homes. And would be dying
more often.

Many theories exist on what constitutes dangerous fields.
Some research suggests as little as 1 gauss. A house,
adjacent or not, to high voltage power lines contains no such
fields. Others suggest limits like 100 milligauss. This is
further complicated by how measurements are taken. But again,
the original post is about high voltage transmission lines.
The 'dangerous' fields, if they even are dangerous, are from
elsewhere. Those worrying about fields from a high voltage
power line are using classic "penny rich and pound poor"
reasoning.

BTW, I am not suggesting that citations Bob Crantz has
provided are in error. Bottom line is that we don't really
know what extremely long term health effects of these low
magnetic and electric fields are. But one must live in
reality. That means one must have numbers. Numbers - if
these lower level fields are so dangerous, then we literally
must rewire all homes. If you thought lead paint was a
problem, then removing all TVs and other displays would be
trivial compared to replacing or relocating househould wire.
Yes it could become a problem just like lead paint. Or it
just as easily become another witch hunt. We don't know. But
we do know what fields currently exist in the house. We do
know the source of those 'theoretically dangerous' fields are
not high voltage transmission lines as some totally
irresponsible news anchors suggest. Low voltage, higher
current wires inside walls should cause concern - if concern
is justified. That is what too many if not most posters
failed to comprehend.

Provided is a crude tool to find locations with high
fields. Fields will cause the TV or CRT picture to shimy or
distort. This is a numerical perspective provided by ball
park measurements.

Bob Crantz wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Where are your numbers, Bob Crantz?

Read the NASA citation. There's numbers. Read the handbook for Magnetic
shielding. There's numbers. Every reference I gave has numbers.

A stationary and permanent magnetic creates electricity?

Yes it can, if you move relative to it. Faradays unipolar generator
(featured on the English 20 pound note) needs no relative motion
between the conductor and magnet to produce electricity. Look it up.

Which field is dangerous - electric or magnetic?

They both can be.

And how much?

80 mv transmembrane potential is all it takes.

How much are the fields under a high voltage transmissions lines?

Between the lines take the voltage between them and divide by the
separation of the lines to get the field strength in volts per
meter. If you know the location of the ground below them (as in
electrical ground) you can create the image circuit (using the
method of images) and calculate the field strength also at the
ground level.

And why do you worry about those high voltage wires when
your own citations, instead, discuss lower voltage wires
inside the building?


The high voltage is ionizing the air. Ever hear that crackling
noise? What is the voltage induced in a moving object under a
power line? Any idea? Indoor wiring = very bad!

It is a classic junk science maneuver. Hype some fear.
Provide no numbers. Then when numbers expose the fear as
hype, attack the messenger rather than provide required
numbers.

Well, where's the proof of your point?

Tell us Bob Crantz. How strong are those fields underneath
that high voltage transmission line? You hyped the fear. But
you forgot to mention whether such fearful numbers even exist
under that transmission line.

100 V/m typically, which would induce 200 volts in a standing
human. 80 mV is all it takes.

In the meantime, others should again remember which electric
lines are accused of being dangerous. Not the high voltage
transmission lines. Even Bob Crantz's own citation discusses
which electric lines were originally suspect. Those low
voltage wires inside the building. Worry more about where the
wire to your electric stove is routed - if there is anything
to even worry about.

I'd really worry about wiring in the house!
...